The Politics of Law: Capricious Originalism and the Future of the Supreme Court

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Polity Pub Date : 2023-02-28 DOI:10.1086/724164
Susan Liebell
{"title":"The Politics of Law: Capricious Originalism and the Future of the Supreme Court","authors":"Susan Liebell","doi":"10.1086/724164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v.Wade, 1 the precedent that had guaranteed access to abortion as a fundamental liberty ensured by the Fourteenth Amendment for almost half a century. Most Americans don’t know much about the Supreme Court or the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the abortion decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization triggered political protests, extensive press coverage, and a wave of voter registration. Candidates for political offices revised their campaign strategies. Millions of dollars were poured into a state-wide referendum on abortion in Kansas. In his majority decision in Dobbs, Justice Alito insisted that the Constitution speaks clearly; abortion is not a fundamental right to be defended by the Court but a policy issue to be determined by the political branches of government. Yet voters are skeptical about whether the Constitution provides such clarity. Polls have consistently shown that people (especially those who identify as Democrats) believe the justices of the Supreme Court are increasingly political, pursuing conservative goals rather than impersonally ruling on constitutionality. Political scientists have","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polity","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724164","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v.Wade, 1 the precedent that had guaranteed access to abortion as a fundamental liberty ensured by the Fourteenth Amendment for almost half a century. Most Americans don’t know much about the Supreme Court or the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the abortion decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization triggered political protests, extensive press coverage, and a wave of voter registration. Candidates for political offices revised their campaign strategies. Millions of dollars were poured into a state-wide referendum on abortion in Kansas. In his majority decision in Dobbs, Justice Alito insisted that the Constitution speaks clearly; abortion is not a fundamental right to be defended by the Court but a policy issue to be determined by the political branches of government. Yet voters are skeptical about whether the Constitution provides such clarity. Polls have consistently shown that people (especially those who identify as Democrats) believe the justices of the Supreme Court are increasingly political, pursuing conservative goals rather than impersonally ruling on constitutionality. Political scientists have
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律政治:反复无常的原旨主义与最高法院的未来
2022年6月,美国最高法院推翻了罗伊诉韦德案(Roe v.Wade),这是近半个世纪以来宪法第十四修正案保障堕胎是一项基本自由的先例。大多数美国人不太了解最高法院或第十四条修正案的正当程序条款,但多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织的堕胎决定引发了政治抗议,广泛的新闻报道和选民登记浪潮。政界候选人修改了竞选策略。数百万美元被投入到堪萨斯州关于堕胎的全民公决中。在多布斯案的多数裁决中,阿利托大法官坚持认为,宪法表述得很清楚;堕胎不是一项需要法院捍卫的基本权利,而是一个应由政府政治部门决定的政策问题。然而,选民们对宪法是否提供了这样的明确性持怀疑态度。民意调查一直显示,人们(尤其是那些自认为是民主党人的人)认为最高法院的法官越来越政治化,追求保守的目标,而不是客观地裁决是否符合宪法。政治学家
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Polity
Polity POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1968, Polity has been committed to the publication of scholarship reflecting the full variety of approaches to the study of politics. As journals have become more specialized and less accessible to many within the discipline of political science, Polity has remained ecumenical. The editor and editorial board welcome articles intended to be of interest to an entire field (e.g., political theory or international politics) within political science, to the discipline as a whole, and to scholars in related disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities. Scholarship of this type promises to be highly "productive" - that is, to stimulate other scholars to ask fresh questions and reconsider conventional assumptions.
期刊最新文献
Does Size Matter in the Context of the Global South? Theorizing the Smallest States The Unique and the Universal in International Studies Theories from the Global South Ideas from the Global South: Dependency and Decoloniality Incorporating Global South Perspectives in the Study of International Relations: Reflections on the Field Long Day’s Journey Into Night
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1